I am a JW, why should I consider becoming a C

[Free]

Ah, but the error is the presumption that Jesus was created.

What specifically makes you so sure that the error isn't the presumption that Jesus wasn't created. (see the post directly above this one)

Because the passage alone makes it clear that he wasn't created. To introduce, as the NWT has done, words which change the meaning of passage to say that Jesus was created, is presumption. If one reads that passage, as it is, apart from any other text, it clearly states that Jesus created all things, and that means everything. Again I will point out that this is in complete agreement with John 1:3.

Of course, no passage stands alone and the rest of Scripture must be taken into consideration but that does not mean it is okay to add words which change the meaning of a given passage. That passage gives other passages meaning just as other passages also give it meaning.

The addition of "other" completely changes the meaning of what Paul is saying and puts this passage in tension with John 1:1-3.

We both agree that Jesus isn't a part of what Jesus created and that Jesus played some part in the creation of all things other than himself and God. I believe it was because the eternal God created Jesus first. You believe it's because they're both eternal. If you disagree with that translation so much, feel free to prefer another translation. I don't see a conversation about "you not approving of a specific translation of a specific verse" being any more productive.

I don't follow what your point is here.

John 1:1-3, 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

There are two other possible consideration. "Apart from him" could be referring to "with the exception of his creation." Or, more likely (IMO), that his creation obviously wasn't "apart" from himself (considering it was the creation of him).

But again, you are reading into the text that he was created and not letting the text first speak for itself. Verse 3 begins by stating "All things came into existence through him." We see here, as in Col 1, that "all things" have come into existence through him. This makes it clear that "apart from him" is meaning "without him."

Indeed, if it were to mean "with the exception of his creation," this puts the first half of the verse in tension with the second half. Not to mention one would have to ignore the Greek of the first two verses.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"--It is very important to note that "was" is the Greek en, and denotes absolute existence, that is, continuous existence in the past. This alone does away with "the Word was a god" since "a god" is not The God and implies a glorified, created being of some sort. However, since the Word always has been, he cannot have been some mere creature since, I'm sure you would agree, eternal preexistence can only be said of God alone.

Contrast that with verse 3 and 14a--"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" and "14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." In both instances, "made" is the Greek egeneto, which means "came into being" and refers to a point of origin.

So, since the Word must have always existed, it completely supports verse 1, according to correct translations which state that "the Word was God." Only God has existed for eternity past.

You're supporting a grammatically incorrect translation of John 1:1 based on an arbitrary assumption about John 1:3... when there's another perfectly simple and logical explanation of John 1:3 that happens to agree with the grammatically correct translation of John 1:1 (and the word was a god).

No, the Greek supports the rendering "the Word was God"--even apart from verse 3, but verse 3 does indeed support such a rendering--but that is not all the Greek states.

It is very important to note that John is making a distinction between the Word and God; he is showing us who the Word is, not who God is. I'm assuming that you're appealing to the fact that there is no article before theos. That it appears anarthrously in no way means that it should be translated as "a god," as the following reasons show:

1. If both God and the Word had an article, "the Word was God" would be the same as "God was the Word," but clearly that is not the case.
2. If neither God nor the Word had an article, "God" and "Word" would be interchangeable, equating all of God with all of the Word, but that is clearly not the case either.
3. There are 282 other instances of theos appearing anarthrously and I can all but guarantee that all of them are translated as "God" in the NWT. This includes John 1:6, 12, 13, and 18. So then one is left scratching their head as to why this single instance in John 1:1 is translated as "a god."

You still haven't responded to the fact that Jesus is the only-(1)begotten (2)son of God and first(3)born (4)of creation. There a reason you're avoiding these points?

No, I must have missed them if you made a point of them. The Greek for "only-begotten," monogenes, can mean "unique" or "one of a kind," and does not necessarily convey any idea of begetting in the sense of being born or created.

As to "first born," I suggest you look at its usage through all of Scripture. Again, it can mean the first born son, but it can also mean more than that. In this case it is a title which speaks of Christ's sovereignty and means that Jesus is preeminent over all creation. It actually speaks to his eternal preexistence which is then supported by the verses immediately following which say that he created "all things."

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God Incarnate, God in human flesh and does not reveal more than this. That is all we can say--Jesus is the God-man.

Where?

I believe I have just shown you.

 

[Mohrb]

First, if he was never created, isn't it apparent that Jesus isn't included in the things created through him?

Chris, I've read this several times, and I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you rephrase this???

K... say you own a forging business... You make stuff out of metal, including tools. In fact you made all the tools you use in the forging process yourself... Your first creation was a very well crafted hammer, and you've used this hammer for all your (other) creations. EVERYTHING you've made, you've made through this hammer. And, apart from this hammer, not a single thing was made. (get the correlation?)

Does that mean that the hammer must have been unmade? Or, does that mean that first you made the hammer, then you made everything with that hammer? What I as getting at is that if I said "apart from this hammer, nothing was made" ... I'm saying that everything I made involved that hammer... the creation of the hammer DID involve the hammer... but I probably didn't forge a hammer using the hammer I was forging. I might have had to do it myself, manually... with a rock or something, I don't know. But saying "I haven't made anything apart from this hammer" doesn't mean that the hammer is uncreated because the creation itself certainly isn't "apart" from itself.

Yes, it's worded awkwardly, and I'm sure there could be a better translation.

You're still stumbling over the term, "firstborn". I understand, given that which has been ingrained into your understanding within the JW church. It has nothing to do with creation. It is referring to His preeminence.

And, how are you so sure that it's not your church that's ingrained into your understanding a version of the word that's more complicated than necessary? Just because our church's disagree doesn't make mine wrong.

In regards to his existence, Jesus is stated to be God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:1-3).

So, the entire faith of the trinity hinges on ignoring the indefinite nature of the end of John 1:1? ...

The implication is that Jesus could not have been created or made, else that statement would be false. Jesus himself stated that he was eternal (no beginning and no end) when he stated, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).

Everyone who lived before Abraham was "before Abraham." Does that make all such people eternal? That verse certainly proves that Jesus existed before his human birth, but that's far from a statement of "eternal" existence.

In Revelation Jesus states, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:8).

Revelation 1:8 IS actually a very interesting study. I've seen research that strongly suggests this is the Father speaking, not the Son. If so, it's no surprise that the Father is calling himself Almighty. There are many references to "some manuscripts" retaining the tetragrammeton in this verse... but I'm having a hard time finding scans of individual manuscripts containing this part to see for myself. I've seen people suggest that it's Jesus because the previous verse mentions Jesus being pierced... however, that verse ends in "Amen"... end of statement, beginning of new statement. However, I haven't yet found a -definitive- set of evidence that would clarify this being the Father verses the Son. Contextually, it should be the Father because it states that it's the "almighty" speaking, which we know to be the Father. However, that would be translating it based on preconceptions, which isn't a good way to do things. However, suggesting it's the Son speaking breaks quite a bit of context, and there's no clear reasoning for that either.

definitely worth this whole conversation to find something for me to research.

 

[Mohrb]

As anticipated, I noticed that both people who responded to:

... The bible calls Jesus "firstborn of creation" and "only-begotten Son of God" ... that's saying he was "created" 4 different ways. What's the specific verse you're reading that suggests that Jesus has always existed like his Father (That couldn't be easily explained by Jesus simply being the first creation)?

... only responded to the fact that "firstborn" doesn't necessarily mean "first"born, but can mean "greatest among those born." ... Point taken... but that would still make him "born." No one seems to have a response to the second part of that statement that he is firstborn "of creation." Speaking of not letting the bible speak for itself and adding in presuppositions to the text... How do you see "firstborn of creation" and interpret it to mean that he's not a part "of creation?"

Also, I didn't see any comments on the fact that he's not only called God's "Son" ... but God's "Begotten" son.

Also still no responses to the first post on page 12.

 

[Free]

... only responded to the fact that "firstborn" doesn't necessarily mean "first"born, but can mean "greatest among those born." ... Point taken... but that would still make him "born." No one seems to have a response to the second part of that statement that he is firstborn "of creation."

I cannot speak for the others since I haven't fully read their posts but you must have not read mine since that isn't remotely what I said.

 

[jasoncran]

... only responded to the fact that "firstborn" doesn't necessarily mean "first"born, but can mean "greatest among those born." ... Point taken... but that would still make him "born." No one seems to have a response to the second part of that statement that he is firstborn "of creation."

I cannot speak for the others since I haven't fully read their posts but you must have not read mine since that isn't remotely what I said.

not even close to what you said

mohrb, you want us to include your faith as christian,odd for a jw, real odd

especially when the jw often call us part of babylonian whore on the beast and also christendom.

you aren't like any jw i ever met. you havent tried to get us to convert nor pm me on why i left or warned me like the others that i have talked to.

 

[Mike]

K... say you own a forging business... You make stuff out of metal, including tools. In fact you made all the tools you use in the forging process yourself... Your first creation was a very well crafted hammer, and you've used this hammer for all your (other) creations. EVERYTHING you've made, you've made through this hammer. And, apart from this hammer, not a single thing was made. (get the correlation?)

Does that mean that the hammer must have been unmade? Or, does that mean that first you made the hammer, then you made everything with that hammer? What I as getting at is that if I said "apart from this hammer, nothing was made" ... I'm saying that everything I made involved that hammer... the creation of the hammer DID involve the hammer... but I probably didn't forge a hammer using the hammer I was forging. I might have had to do it myself, manually... with a rock or something, I don't know. But saying "I haven't made anything apart from this hammer" doesn't mean that the xhammer is uncreated because the creation itself certainly isn't "apart" from itself.

I understand what you are saying here and why you are saying it. But again everything you say here hinges on the changed verbiage and belief that makes Him the first hammer. He is the Alpha in addition to the Omega, He is the I AM, the name above every name (equal to the other triune parts), that at whose name every knee shall bow, tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! (Hodgepodge of Rev, Col and Phil) He is call "Immanuel" --> "God is with us" One of the verses you quoted earlier from Col 1 ends with "...confess that He is Lord." Confess that He is WHAT??? LORD!!! Here you are taking, retaking, and re-retaking the word "Firstborn" and inferring it to mean what we believe it is not meant to mean, based on ALL the other pointed references that establish His deity (if careful placement of certain words are not included). I get that you believe what you believe.

And, how are you so sure that it's not your church that's ingrained into your understanding a version of the word that's more complicated than necessary? Just because our church's disagree doesn't make mine wrong.

I've said that I believe you are wrong. I even went so far as to say either one of us could be wrong, or both of us could be wrong, but that in the end I believe I am correct. And yes, the beliefs that Christianity holds true are ingrained in my heart as yours are in your heart. When I first read your post and got to this part, I had an impulse to quote this right away and set the record strait. But I diligently went about my process to address your whole post.

So, the entire faith of the trinity hinges on ignoring the indefinite nature of the end of John 1:1? ...

The implication is that Jesus could not have been created or made, else that statement would be false. Jesus himself stated that he was eternal (no beginning and no end) when he stated, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).

Everyone who lived before Abraham was "before Abraham." Does that make all such people eternal? That verse certainly proves that Jesus existed before his human birth, but that's far from a statement of "eternal" existence.

Well, let’s look at Abraham. Jewish history begins with Abraham. Genesis 12. Before Abraham, you have a Noah and you have Adam and Eve, but you do not have a Jewish nation yet. It is with Abraham that everything begins. Faith is invented. The promise land is staked out. Abraham becomes the founder of the founders. Jesus meant that just as his death on the cross would not be the end of him, so also his birth in Bethlehem was not the beginning of him. Jesus is saying that before any king rose up on the land, before any prophet spoke a word, before ever there was a temple, before ever there was a holy land, even before Abraham, I am. The person who we know as Jesus was already the heart of God at the very beginning of eternity. The spirit of Jesus was there at a time when we cannot even think for we think in time, but Jesus was there before time.

Revelation 1:8 IS actually a very interesting study. I've seen research that strongly suggests this is the Father speaking, not the Son. If so, it's no surprise that the Father is calling himself Almighty. There are many references to "some manuscripts" retaining the tetragrammeton in this verse... but I'm having a hard time finding scans of individual manuscripts containing this part to see for myself. I've seen people suggest that it's Jesus because the previous verse mentions Jesus being pierced... however, that verse ends in "Amen"... end of statement, beginning of new statement. However, I haven't yet found a -definitive- set of evidence that would clarify this being the Father verses the Son. Contextually, it should be the Father because it states that it's the "almighty" speaking, which we know to be the Father. However, that would be translating it based on preconceptions, which isn't a good way to do things. However, suggesting it's the Son speaking breaks quite a bit of context, and there's no clear reasoning for that either.

So let me include the verses before AND after the statement. Rev 1:4-11
"4John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

9I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

So, we are agreeing that everything before and after verse 8 is about Jesus. From His return before it to talking about the 7 churches, which Jesus eventually addresses - sandwiched right in the middle of all this reference to Jesus is a statement from God the Father about God the Father??? I wouldn't be Jesus this verse is pointing to? Everything before and after is about Jesus, but he breaks the tenor of his book and sticks a verse in from the Father? Chris, that seems to be reaching.

And, no, I didn't get into the Trinity. Let's establish the 2nd Godhead before we try and take on the Trinity. Many threads and a few debates cover this adequately.

 

[Mysteryman]

As anticipated, I noticed that both people who responded to:

... The bible calls Jesus "firstborn of creation" and "only-begotten Son of God" ... that's saying he was "created" 4 different ways. What's the specific verse you're reading that suggests that Jesus has always existed like his Father (That couldn't be easily explained by Jesus simply being the first creation)?

... only responded to the fact that "firstborn" doesn't necessarily mean "first"born, but can mean "greatest among those born." ... Point taken... but that would still make him "born." No one seems to have a response to the second part of that statement that he is firstborn "of creation." Speaking of not letting the bible speak for itself and adding in presuppositions to the text... How do you see "firstborn of creation" and interpret it to mean that he's not a part "of creation?"

Also, I didn't see any comments on the fact that he's not only called God's "Son" ... but God's "Begotten" son.

Also still no responses to the first post on page 12.

Hi

When the Word talks about first born of creation, it is talking about the Revealed Mystery --- Christ as the head of the body, and the church which makes up his body.

Jesus Christ was born of the flesh.

As the first man Adam was created in the image of God, so was the Last Adam created in the same manner. The Last Adam, being the spiritual, the Revealed Mystery - Christ and the body of Christ.

 

[Mohrb]

... only responded to the fact that "firstborn" doesn't necessarily mean "first"born, but can mean "greatest among those born." ... Point taken... but that would still make him "born." No one seems to have a response to the second part of that statement that he is firstborn "of creation."

I cannot speak for the others since I haven't fully read their posts but you must have not read mine since that isn't remotely what I said.

not even close to what you said

Maybe I misunderstood the reasoning then? Usually when people argue against the "firstborn" point, they point out that in the bible there are a few (2 or 3, I think) examples of a son who was not born "first" being called the "firstborn" ... not because they were chronologically first, but because they were given the right of the firstborn. I believe Free said that it was "a matter of preeminence"... and this COULD be a valid point, but it really doesn't provide a counterpoint to the concept of Jesus being created because by this understanding, it would still have a context of one being "born" (even if it's not chronologically "first").

... if I misunderstood it, could someone explain it more specifically?

mohrb, you want us to include your faith as christian,odd for a jw, real odd

especially when the jw often call us part of babylonian whore on the beast and also christendom.

you aren't like any jw i ever met. you havent tried to get us to convert nor pm me on why i left or warned me like the others that i have talked to.

As far as wondering why you left the JWs... You haven't come across as someone who's going out of their way to spread unrealistic rumors or harass JWs... so it's not really applicable to this particular conversation. Of course, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning if you'd be willing, but I haven't found you as disruptive as the people who go off in all caps about how "JWS KILL THEIR CHILDREN AND 80% OF THEM ARE PEDOPHILES AND THEY DONT BELIEVE IN JESUS!!!one!"

I have no interest in "joining" a group defined by the nicene creed... however, I do try to speak up in situations where people call JWs non-Christian. It's not that I want us to "join" mainstream "Christianity" ... rather, I try to speak up for the fact that we already are Christian in that we follow the teachings of Christ to the best of our imperfect ability. I put the above "Christianity" in quotes because, while I'm sure many non-JW individuals follow Christ to the best of their ability too, but I'm also very sure that there are many individuals and official organizations who go directly against Christ more often than they follow him... asking for church donations to line their own pocket, giving people God's blessing to go off on some political war and kill people in a land where others from the SAME denomination are blessing their people to fight back, stealing the authority from God to glorify themselves and threaten people with eternal hellfire if they don't obey an imperfect man, condoning idolatry among many other sins... etc.

Just saying that not all people professing to be Christians, yet completely ignoring the majority of Christ's teachings. Still not my place to get between them and God... but there are some people who's motives I doubt.

That said, I agree that there are definitely many JWs that take this too far and become judgmental. If someone doesn't believe EXACTLY as JWs do, some JWs equate it to directly worshiping satan. I think this goes too far because we're learning just like everyone else. As has been pointed out here, in the first few decades of the JWs, our leadership made some serious errors in judgment, and we didn't weed out all false doctrine the moment we formed (we still used crosses for a while there), and even today, our magazines are written by fallible people and can be worded inappropriately. Anyone who thinks we can still be learning, yet consider ourselves to be "The truth" ... yet judges anyone else who simply is where we once were as worshiping Satan is just asking for a pretty strict judgment when it's their turn to be judged by God.

Personally, I'd like God to show me as much mercy as possible, so likewise, I try not to obsess over the flaws I see in others. I may disagree, but I leave the judging to someone else. If I had to suggest one scripture for JWs to study more closely, it would be Luke 15:1-7.


... Which brings to mind a potentially VERY interesting topic for discussion! Most people just blindly pick a faith and assume everything their congregation teaches is infallible. But, every denomination, by separating itself from the rest of our christian brothers and sisters (thus by the sheer fact that it's a distinct denomination) is acting unspiritually (according to Galatians 5:20, which lists "contentions, divisions, and sects" among the works of the flesh). So, every free-thinking person should have at least SOME disagreement with the official doctrine of the denomination they go to because no one has a PERFECT understanding of every detail in the bible. So, while most discussions people defend their faith against people who disagree with it... it would be interesting to have a thread where people thought critically of their own denomination, and suggested a scripture that they would have members of their denomination read to fix an aspect where they fall short. Someone want to start a thread like that (worded more clearly than the above? I just got off work and I've got nearly a gallon of "MONSTER ENERGY DRINK" in my system. :crazy )

 

[Mohrb]

edit to add: Btw, I'll be adding bold and underline to this post... please don't interpret any of this as "yelling" or anything rude. There's just a lot going on here, so I'm trying to highlight specific parts I'd like to draw attention to.

One of the verses you quoted earlier from Col 1 ends with "...confess that He is Lord." Confess that He is WHAT??? LORD!!!

Indeed. Jesus is lord! He's been given full authority, thus making him Kurios, lord, master. "Lordship" is a matter of authority, Jesus was given that (temporarily, and the bible says he will give it back to his God who gave him this authority). Authority does not make one almighty God. No one "gave" the Father authority... he's simply almighty God and all authority belongs to him. However, like the king mentioned at Psalms 45:6, Jesus is described at Hebrews 1:9 "That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners."

... Yes, Jesus is Lord... because his God anointed him with the oil of exultation more than his partners (or "peers" in some translations). Which shows that Jesus was lower... and made greater by his God.

Well, let’s look at Abraham. Jewish history begins with Abraham. Genesis 12. Before Abraham, you have a Noah and you have Adam and Eve, but you do not have a Jewish nation yet. It is with Abraham that everything begins. Faith is invented. The promise land is staked out. Abraham becomes the founder of the founders. Jesus meant that just as his death on the cross would not be the end of him, so also his birth in Bethlehem was not the beginning of him. Jesus is saying that before any king rose up on the land, before any prophet spoke a word, before ever there was a temple, before ever there was a holy land, even before Abraham, I am. The person who we know as Jesus was already the heart of God at the very beginning of eternity. The spirit of Jesus was there at a time when we cannot even think for we think in time, but Jesus was there before time.

... and you get all that from "Before Abraham was, ego eimi?" I agree that this implies a pre-human existence... but to extend it to mean that the "begotten Son" exists as eternally as his Father, who begat him... is a bit of a leap in logic, don't you think?

So let me include the verses before AND after the statement. Rev 1:4-11
"4John,
To the seven churches in the province of Asia:

Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
7Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

9I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."

So, we are agreeing that everything before and after verse 8 is about Jesus. From His return before it to talking about the 7 churches, which Jesus eventually addresses - sandwiched right in the middle of all this reference to Jesus is a statement from God the Father about God the Father???

I added bold and underline to point out that it's not one sentence discussing the Father sandwiched in between verses entirely about the Son. Yes, most of 4-7 is about Jesus, who "serve(s) his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen."

Verse 8 is part of a new statement where "The Lord God" states that he is alpha and omega, then John speaks of the patience and endurance that are his in Jesus because of the word of God (and the testimony of Jesus). Then continues about "The Lord's day"... which, again, is the problem with substituting the Father's name with the title "Lord"... because while most seem to assume that this speaks of "Jesus' day" considering he is "lord"... "The Lord's day" refers to scriptures such as Isa 2:12; 13:6,9; Jer 46:10; Eze 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Am 5:18,20; Ob 1:15; Zep 1:7,14; Zec 14:1; Mal 4:5... as "Jehovah's day" (using the tetragrammeton, but often translated as "Lord").

So yes, verse 4-7 primarily discusses Jesus (while mentioning his God)... but verse 8 and on is primarily discussing God. (considering it's a revelation of Jesus, which God gave him... see verse 1)

Yes.. both are discussed. But that's because whenever Jesus is discussed, he's constantly giving glory to his Father and God (see John 17).

 

[jasoncran]

As far as wondering why you left the JWs... You haven't come across as someone who's going out of their way to spread unrealistic rumors or harass JWs... so it's not really applicable to this particular conversation. Of course, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning if you'd be willing, but I haven't found you as disruptive as the people who go off in all caps about how "JWS KILL THEIR CHILDREN AND 80% OF THEM ARE PEDOPHILES AND THEY DONT BELIEVE IN JESUS!!!

of course not, i dont like the brainwashing that i went through by them, but i do know that they aint that dysfunctional. i was raised in far more dogmatic version of what you teach. so i am curious to the softening of message and why.

still many are that way as i mentioned earlier.

i will disagree with one thing, we must define who jesus is and agree before we can honestly say that one side calls the other nonchristian. frankly i think that the jw err on that micheal the archangel thing. that is why i dont call them a christian denomation.

 

[Mike]

... Which brings to mind a potentially VERY interesting topic for discussion! Most people just blindly pick a faith and assume everything their congregation teaches is infallible. But, every denomination, by separating itself from the rest of our christian brothers and sisters (thus by the sheer fact that it's a distinct denomination) is acting unspiritually (according to Galatians 5:20, which lists "contentions, divisions, and sects" among the works of the flesh). So, every free-thinking person should have at least SOME disagreement with the official doctrine of the denomination they go to because no one has a PERFECT understanding of every detail in the bible. So, while most discussions people defend their faith against people who disagree with it... it would be interesting to have a thread where people thought critically of their own denomination, and suggested a scripture that they would have members of their denomination read to fix an aspect where they fall short. Someone want to start a thread like that (worded more clearly than the above? I just got off work and I've got nearly a gallon of "MONSTER ENERGY DRINK" in my system. :crazy )

Chris, since this last paragraph was to us in general, I'd like to respond to this. Some may (wrongly) believe their church or denomination holds a monopoly on the whole Truth. That's sad. Most Christians I've dealt with online or in person, however, hold that we try to get as closely to the perfect Truth of Scripture as we can but acknowledge that we fall short. I started a thread about "non-denominational churches" where we ended up discussing what we (d's and non-d's) have in common, and there seemed to be a general agreement that the core tenets bind us. I started another called, "I Just Read the Bible...) The premise was that I don't believe it when someone says in effect, "I don't understand why people read INTO the Bible and come away with flawed understanding. I just read the Bible for what it says." I believe that's an arrogant posture to suggest that a person, a church or a denomination can simply strip all outside influences and read it plainly without the flesh misinterpreting some of the text.

So denominations, my own included, has some misunderstandings in some areas. But I feel it's as close to the true belief of scripture that I have found. But we are part of the other denominations that hold the core tenets, and we are the Church.

The OP to this thread started out with a premise that you took issue with. JW's are not Christians, and he was a JW. I still don't understand the basic premise that you are a Christian, though you believe He is not a deity. With God the Father, why would you associate your whole purpose with following someone who isn't and claim his namesake to identify yourselves with? Why not "Church of Jehovah" or something to that effect? I wouldn't call my faith "Michaelism", though the archangel Michael was very important to God's purpose.

But you had the Christian church bound together under the knowledge that Jesus is God in and with the Father until Russell came along and stripped this status from Him. I hope you know by now the respect I have come to have for you, so please don't take this in the wrong spirit. I just can't get my hands around a group that broke away from this main tenet of our faith and somehow call counts themselves among them. And obviously (as evidenced by the OP) your opinion isn't shared within your own church.

I realize I'm taking a step back from the verses we were sharing to give evidence for or against his deity, but it has recently emerged, and I still need help understanding this. This has been a most enjoyable discussion! When I have time, I'll back up and respond to your last response to me.

 

[Mohrb]

of course not, i dont like the brainwashing that i went through by them, but i do know that they aint that dysfunctional. i was raised in far more dogmatic version of what you teach. so i am curious to the softening of message and why.

I don't think that it's a "softening" of the message. People in general are just a bit less extreme now than what was once the norm. Up through the 50's... pretty much everything was spoon-fed to people through propaganda. "If you ride alone, you ride with hitler!" Just watch "Reefer Madness" some time. Keep in mind, I don't condone any drug use, and I've never done any illegal drugs. However, I do think it's silly that cigarettes are completely legal, while pot (which has never killed anyone... ever) has been the subject of such insane propaganda. I can't think of any propaganda campaigns specific to the 60's off the top of my head, but the 70's and 80's were filled with fear mongering about how everything evil is communist and everything communist is evil (which is why so many people are still afraid of public health care because people correlate it with "socialism").

However, since the cold war... it's at least been less common. Both sides of the argument exaggerate the global warming theories, and everyone's told that "all muslims or arabs are terrorists"... But it's more of an exception than the rule now-a-days.

Based on what I've observed from this conversation, I'd be willing to wager that you had particularly fundamentalist parents. I'd say it's likely that they wanted to light a spiritual fire under you by -forcing- you to adopt their extreme beliefs rather than teaching you a balanced viewpoint and trusting you to come to your own conclusion. They pushed you too much toward their beliefs, and ended up pushing you away from it.

(At least, that's the most common situation I've seen. Of course, from your perspective, if the above is true, you would see it as "eventually I saw how I was being brainwashed by the WBTS" ... when in fact you were repulsed by how your parents had brainwashed themselves.)

i will disagree with one thing, we must define who jesus is and agree before we can honestly say that one side calls the other nonchristian. frankly i think that the jw err on that micheal the archangel thing. that is why i dont call them a christian denomation.

My definition: Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God. He was "the word" that existed with God from the creation on, who was exulted beyond his peers, and then sent to live as a sinless human, and be sacrificed to pay for all sin. He was then resurrected by his Father, and is the intermediary between us and the Father. He's our lord and high priest, the head of the congregation, and at some point will rule for 1000 years (Whether that started invisibly in 1914 or will start after Armageddon, I dunno. Personally, I don't think that'll start until the end of Armageddon). After which he'll give all authority he was given back to the Father, who gave it to him.


You can agree or disagree, but I have scriptural evidence for every aspect of the above statement (didn't notate all of it because I already have a number of times in this thread, and 6:00 am is past my bedtime already).

As far as "Michael the archangel" goes. I think it's a distinct possibility. There is quite a bit of evidence supporting the claim... but a lot of it is just as subjective as the "evidence" for a trinity. I think it IS unfair of us to be "so sure" that Jesus and Michael are the same being when we're so critical of trinitarian arguments.

That being said... almost everyone would agree that no one has preached God's message more than Jesus... that Jesus is God's Chief Messenger. ... All "archangel" means is "Chief messenger." It would be a stretch to claim that anyone but Jesus could have the title of "Chief messenger" (archangel). Further, michael is said to be the one to lead the battle against Satan... so is Jesus. Jesus is also said to return "with the voice of the archangel" (Not "proof" ... but a notable suggestion). Also, if you compare John 1:1, that the word is "qualitatively theos" "divine" "a god" or "godlike" ... with the meaning of the name "Michael:" "Who is like God?" Also, hebrews 1:9 shows that Jesus was exulted above his peers... and the title "archangel" could also be interpreted as one that is above the other angels... which would fit the description of Jesus per Hebrews 1:9. Also, Revelation 22 shows a single being speaking to John who is referred to as an "angel" ... and later reveals himself to be Jesus.

Again, this is just off the top of my head. All interesting points that add up so that if "archangel" was simply another name for the Son, I wouldn't be surprised. But, it's not directly stated, so I don't think it's wise for us to state it as fact.

Time for sleepy sleepy

 

[jasoncran]

while obviously my parents endorsed that idealism. it was mainly the witness themselves that taught me that and my family.

should a kid see the graphic stories in the my book of bible stories.
ie the murder of abel with some graphic detail

no sunday school taught,or any thing with kids in mind. i also , as a tween,and younger taught the bible along with the watchtower or awake.

reading the bible for your self was discouraged.

they often went throught the books you had to buy from the tract society then each month on a cycle ie
these
you can live forever too
jesus christ the greatest man that ever lived
and the blue book telling you what was in revalation


i used to be told and think that the church in now attend and others were of the devil
it was wrong to listen to secular music
have friends or date anyone outside the "truth"
the trinity was based on the three headed god of the egyptians (maybe osirus, horus and seth)

the rcc was satanic in their translations as they not the watchtower and tract society had the peverse translations

the christendom chruch was to be the storehouse of demons when the millenial reign returns

and my favorite one

one day it will be illegal to have any religion and that the anti-christ and beast and false prophet will come
and that all jw will go to the tract society that has a underground labryith or the like that will house all.



hmmmmmm

is this still taught to you all.

i find it very odd that it has changed, maybe you arent agreeing with that but i get the typical responses to my queries when i ask the jws i know.

 

[Free]

Maybe I misunderstood the reasoning then? Usually when people argue against the "firstborn" point, they point out that in the bible there are a few (2 or 3, I think) examples of a son who was not born "first" being called the "firstborn" ... not because they were chronologically first, but because they were given the right of the firstborn. I believe Free said that it was "a matter of preeminence"... and this COULD be a valid point, but it really doesn't provide a counterpoint to the concept of Jesus being created because by this understanding, it would still have a context of one being "born" (even if it's not chronologically "first").

... if I misunderstood it, could someone explain it more specifically?

There are several examples of the use of firstborn not referring to a son or even a person for that matter (see Ex 4:22; Jer 31:9). And with that in mind, the idea of firstborn can mean preeminence without any context of "one being born," at all. This is further supported by what the passage then goes on to say: that Jesus created all things--meaning every single thing that has ever been created (John 1:3).

 

[Bronzesnake]

Of all the translation team members of the NWT only one of them - Frederick W. Franz had any schooling in Hebrew or Greek.
Franz quit during his second year, and when challenged in a Scottish court to translate a simple paragraph into Hebrew he could not do it!
This is the bible you rely on if you're a J.W.

Listen to this analogy.
You inherit a very valuable and rare oil painting by a well known artist; say Van Gough.
You then see an identical painting on an action web site up for sale.
You contact the auction house and they immediately set about having both paintings analyzed.
They discover one oil painting to be much older that the other...which painting do you want to keep?
The older one of the newer one?

The assertion that the Catholic Church somehow perverted the scriptures is only made by ignorant people who do not study any facts for themselves and rely on “elders†or church “leaders†to do the thinking for them. They accept any and all source materials from their respective cults regardless of what the greatly vast majority of ancient manuscripts prove to be factual.

I am not a catholic, so I’m not defending anyone here.
I do know that the New Testament for example, has well over twenty eight thousand ancient manuscripts that go back as far as 40 A.D. and perhaps even as late as 8 A.D.
All one has to do is compare the many thousands of scriptures in several languages to see if what we have today has been preserved or tampered with.
This is exactly what has been done and we know with 100% certainty that the scriptures are virtually intact, and that the NWT is a complete fraud.

Now people trapped in cults have an extremely difficult time accepting this kind of irrefutable fact, and they will refer to the forged source materials of their leaders. A few of them who want the truth will and have broken the chains of deceit and are today great resources for those who are still trapped in the cult.
There is a very specific warning at the end of the New Testament against anyone who adds or takes away from the scriptures, and the people in the J.W. and other cults would do themselves a huge favour by taking heed.
It takes wilful blindness for a person to keep believing in false predictions and prophecies as the J.W. are guilty of.
Whenever these predictions are shown to be wrong the leaders simply send out literature which states how they weren’t actually wrong about the predictions, but that Jehovah gave them “new lightâ€
There are literally hundreds of examples to be found in the J.W. literature which prove they have been wrong time after time after time, and yet all is forgiven by simply stating “new light†kids!

The Muslims did the same thing when they used the scriptures to put together their own special version.
The J.W. would be hard pressed to explain why they believe their “new version†is God’s word and not the Islamic “new versionâ€
In any case what kind of God do we have if he couldn’t get his message out correct the first time around? Apparently some of it was good but lots of it had to be “corrected†...sigh...

satan is a master propagandist as well as strategist. His volume of work is excessive, his tricks and deceit are unmatched and we really have no chance against him when we reject Jesus as God and saviour.
He is responsible for distorting God’s word and it pains me to know that millions will reject the original truth for satan’s forgeries.

Take care my friends.

Bronzesnake

 

[Mysteryman]

Hi

When the Word talks about first born of creation, it is talking about the Revealed Mystery --- Christ as the head of the body, and the church which makes up his body.

Jesus Christ was born of the flesh.

As the first man Adam was created in the image of God, so was the Last Adam created in the same manner. The Last Adam, being the spiritual, the Revealed Mystery - Christ and the body of Christ.

 

[Mohrb]

First off, MJJCB wrote:

The OP to this thread started out with a premise that you took issue with. JW's are not Christians, and he was a JW.

The OP was most certainly not a JW. Apart from referring to JWs as "they" more often than not, he has a very over-simplified concept of JW doctrine, and spent more time passive-aggressively attacking JWs than anything else. ... Just the wording of the OP is obviously biased toward a trinitarian viewpoint. Although sometimes he says "we" ... he's already decided that

"If Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega (the first and last Greek letters), then the "first and the last"Â must refer to Jehovah, so the Witnesses claim. But when did Jehovah become dead? The only "first and last"Â who died and lived again is Jesus."

So, he's insisting that if two people use the same phrase, than those two must be two persons in one being... something that no one would find in any way logical unless they've been indoctrinated by a trinitarian church. Moreover... JWs are Christian. Every time the governing body writes a letter, it's signed "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." If the OP was a JW, he'd know that. The original poster copy and pasted an article designed to attack JWs from "gotquestions.org." Notice, after the original post, the original poster (solo) posted nothing but more propaganda from anti-JW attack sites... He had plenty of Ad hominem and Ad populum fallacious statements... but never made a single logical point. i.e. he stopped in to troll a group that wasn't likely to defend itself... I'd wager because it makes him feel "tough."

I hate to put it so bluntly... but honestly... some time try asking an unbiased party what they find to be logical. Ask someone who's always been an atheist (therefore has not been indoctrinated to believe one way or the other). That way you can get an unbiased opinion.

while obviously my parents endorsed that idealism. it was mainly the witness themselves that taught me that and my family.

I don't see what's "obvious" about what you call "endorsing idealism." Most JWs are quite level headed people... try visiting a congregation some time and just "talking" ... without trying to "disprove" anything or turning the discussion to a "challenge" or "debate." Most are quite reasonable. Of course, there are SOME that are just plain fundamentalist. The fact that you said "obviously" illustrates that you consider your parent's version of idealism to be the norm. Which it isn't. Idealism/fanaticism/fundamentalism is a mark of someone who is not comfortable with their faith, but are trying to FORCE themselves to believe. This never works, and often damages the faith of others. (of course, there is a healthy portion of zeal... but true zeal should be a form of loving God... and should be expressed by moderation and patience... NOT extremism.)

should a kid see the graphic stories in the my book of bible stories.
ie the murder of abel with some graphic detail

... the bible discussed the important parts of many peoples lives, including how they died. Sorry? Is the story of cane and able really more "terrifying" to young children than telling them about people going to hell to be tortured by God for an eternity?

If you want to talk "scare tactics" and churches exposing children to inappropriately shocking scenes... look at pentecostal churches sometimes. Seem to never run out of demon possessed people to parade in front of children.

no sunday school taught,or any thing with kids in mind. i also , as a tween,and younger taught the bible along with the watchtower or awake.

What do you believe is the value of having a "church" separate from a "sunday school?"

reading the bible for your self was discouraged.

Not sure who told you this, because it's absolutely encouraged... and has been as long as I've been around. Yes, there's a watchtower article that floats around propaganda web sites that's famous for an out of context quote that people interpret to mean that people shouldn't read the bible directly and only study it through the glasses of the other publications.... But, if you actually read the whole article, you'd realize that's the OPPOSITE of what the article was pointing out. They were discussing the value of the publications on the basis of them being bible-based, and that they can help with one's bible studies. I've never met a practicing JW who would be offended by someone sitting down with just their bible and reading for themselves.

Now, there's also another article which is often quoted by propaganda sites where "the society discourages independent thinking" ... but again, that's entirely out of context. The point they were making is that people should study together and not have a spirit of "independence" by thinking that they don't need to discuss their spirituality with anyone else. Essentially the article is based on the scripture "Do not forsake the gathering of yourselves together, as some have grown accustomed." ... it's NOT about stifling freedom of thought.

they often went throught the books you had to buy from the tract society then each month on a cycle

... there's still a book study, but there hasn't been a charge for the books in at least 15 years or so. I know different people have different personal opinions. I know some people who make sure to donate a few dollars any time they get a book for themselves. Some make a specific monthly donation. However, there are no rules (or even guidelines) for how one should donate. No record is kept about "who" donates "how much" (although a record is kept of the total amount of donations and exactly how it's to be spent, to make sure that not a penny is pocketed).

i used to be told and think that the church in now attend and others were of the devil
it was wrong to listen to secular music
have friends or date anyone outside the "truth"
the trinity was based on the three headed god of the egyptians (maybe osirus, horus and seth)

1: Churches that worship gods other than the Father, are viewed as "false religion" ... although I agree that this is a bit of an oversimplification.
2: There's no rule whatsoever against secular music... nor have I EVER heard of one. They've always warned people to use their consciences... for example, I wouldn't listen to KISS, Pantera, Coheed and Cambria, or Hinder for religious reasons... but I don't know a single witness who objects to any music not produced by the WBTS. More witnesses would find typical "Christian music" to be more offensive than most general secular music.
3: There is such a thing as "bad associations" but again I don't know a single JW that would disapprove of having ANY non-JW friends. JWs are just less likely to try to pressure you to act in a way that we would find immoral. Just like a Lutheran would be less likely to try to pressure another Lutheran to act in a way Lutherans would object to.
4: That's not the only explanation for the trinity, but a "three headed God" is one explanation of the trinity... because that's one way trinitarians have presented it.

I'll give you a hint... JWs didn't draw this:

or this (although this does seem to come from a site that has a number of disagreements with the orthodox church)

the rcc was satanic in their translations as they not the watchtower and tract society had the peverse translations

We used the KJV as "our official translation" until the 60's, and have never said that it was "perverse" let alone "satanic." ... however, we do believe that it's disrespectful to kick Jehovah's name out of his own bible in order to push the doctrines of the catholic church.

the christendom chruch was to be the storehouse of demons when the millenial reign returns

? No idea where you get that at all.

one day it will be illegal to have any religion and that the anti-christ and beast and false prophet will come and that all jw will go to the tract society that has a underground labryith or the like that will house all.

JWs do believe that before Armegeddon, the world governments will turn against religion and successfully destroy most organized religions... however, we don't believe that they'll successfully destroy us. Has nothing to do with an underground labyrinth... no idea where you get that idea either. (Also, notice how the world's become more and more hostile against Islam, it's starting to lose it's patience with Judaism because they're not acting any better than the Palestinians, some believe they're acting worse. Governments are definitely in a position where state-sponsored irradiation of a religion wouldn't really surprise anyone.)

i find it very odd that it has changed, maybe you arent agreeing with that but i get the typical responses to my queries when i ask the jws i know.

Can you HONESTLY find a current JW anywhere who seriously believes it to be immoral to associate with ANY non-JWs or listen to ANY secular music? I'd love to talk to such a person to figure out where they're getting these ideas that gives us such a bad name. Any chance you can get one to contact me somehow? I'll give you my Email address if they think forums are evil too.

 

[Mohrb]

There are several examples of the use of firstborn not referring to a son or even a person for that matter (see Ex 4:22; Jer 31:9). And with that in mind, the idea of firstborn can mean preeminence without any context of "one being born," at all. This is further supported by what the passage then goes on to say: that Jesus created all things--meaning every single thing that has ever been created (John 1:3).

Jeremiah 31:9 is most definitely talking about a son. However, you're right about Exodus 4:22. That is a good point.

However, I specified that "firstborn" wasn't really the point of "Firstborn of creation." Being the "preeminent of creation" still makes one part of "creation."

I'm sure you can also justify how a "Son" can be the same age as his "Father" (that they're not really "Father and Son" ... just play those roles)... however, Jesus isn't just "in the role of a son"... he's specifically God's "Begotten" son.

Care to comment?

 

[Mohrb]

This is the bible you rely on if you're a J.W.

... incorrect. Please educate yourself at least -slightly- before making comments about the intelligence of others. That is all.

Listen to this analogy.
You inherit a very valuable and rare oil painting by a well known artist; say Van Gough.
You then see an identical painting on an action web site up for sale.
You contact the auction house and they immediately set about having both paintings analyzed.
They discover one oil painting to be much older that the other...which painting do you want to keep?
The older one of the newer one?

"Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true."

The assertion that the Catholic Church somehow perverted the scriptures is only made by ignorant people who do not study any facts for themselves and rely on “elders†or church “leaders†to do the thinking for them.

... or people who have translation experience, an interlinear, a greek>english dictionary, and knowledge of basic grammar. Doesn't take a genius to see the name "YHWH" being translated as "LORD" isn't honest.


... Bronzesnake... I really do try to treat people with as much respect as possible... but you're spouting off blind accusations with such arrogance...

If all you want to do is take a proverbial "swing" it someone to justify your own faith... I hope you feel better. When you eventually would like to have an intelligent conversation, I'd be happy to speak with you at that point.

 

[Mike]

First off, MJJCB wrote:

The OP to this thread started out with a premise that you took issue with. JW's are not Christians, and he was a JW.

The OP was most certainly not a JW. Apart from referring to JWs as "they" more often than not, he has a very over-simplified concept of JW doctrine, and spent more time passive-aggressively attacking JWs than anything else. ... Just the wording of the OP is obviously biased toward a trinitarian viewpoint. Although sometimes he says "we" ... he's already decided that

[quote:3ocybo4g]"If Jehovah is the Alpha and Omega (the first and last Greek letters), then the "first and the last"Â must refer to Jehovah, so the Witnesses claim. But when did Jehovah become dead? The only "first and last"Â who died and lived again is Jesus."

So, he's insisting that if two people use the same phrase, than those two must be two persons in one being... something that no one would find in any way logical unless they've been indoctrinated by a trinitarian church. Moreover... JWs are Christian. Every time the governing body writes a letter, it's signed "The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses." If the OP was a JW, he'd know that. The original poster copy and pasted an article designed to attack JWs from "gotquestions.org." Notice, after the original post, the original poster (solo) posted nothing but more propaganda from anti-JW attack sites... He had plenty of Ad hominem and Ad populum fallacious statements... but never made a single logical point. i.e. he stopped in to troll a group that wasn't likely to defend itself... I'd wager because it makes him feel "tough."

I hate to put it so bluntly... but honestly... some time try asking an unbiased party what they find to be logical. Ask someone who's always been an atheist (therefore has not been indoctrinated to believe one way or the other). That way you can get an unbiased opinion. [/quote:3ocybo4g]

Chris, my mistake. I have to admit when I jumped in the conversation, it was well after it had been established and didn't read all of it. Interestingly, I went to see "Solo"'s body of work by clicking on his name, but apparently he is no longer a member, and I couldn't even view past posts.

Really, if we ask someone without any faith (an atheist) for their opinion, they from their perspective would say we are all loonies. Faith is complete folly to those who can't open their mind to it.

You can say when ever the governing body writes a letter addressed as "Christians", but that doesn't make it true. Can you give my post another read? Are you able to see my side of this issue, even if you disagree? From my perspective, a Christian is defined by his acknowledgment that Jesus was and is God Incarnate. To deny this and worship Jehovah, might make you a spiritual person, but it doesn't make you a Christian.

Listen to this analogy.
You inherit a very valuable and rare oil painting by a well known artist; say Van Gough.
You then see an identical painting on an action web site up for sale.
You contact the auction house and they immediately set about having both paintings analyzed.
They discover one oil painting to be much older that the other...which painting do you want to keep?
The older one of the newer one?

"Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

X is old or traditional
Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microrganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true."

I thought his analogy was interesting. Simplistic, but then again, all analogies are simplistic compared to the Glory of God. The point that it makes (or made to me) was that you have the basic tenets of Christianity that had always been accepted, and Russell came along and re-wrote the foundation of the Church. I can't see how after ~1800 years of understanding His deity, you can reject Jesus as God based on a new initiative and fully adopt that of someone else.